Excited Big Sister. Stella and Grandpa and Grandma hold Max
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump pledged, during his campaign, he wanted to take us out of the continued "unwinnable war" position and Trump haters told us he would get us into more wars because he was brash and knew nothing.
Then Trump renounced The Iran Deal which was Obama's attempt to buy off the Iranian Ayatollah's with billions in the naive and mistaken belief Iran would join the nations of the world in becoming a productive, rational society. Instead Obama helped fund the spread of Iranian terrorism. Now Iran is engaged in yanking Trump's tail because his economic sanctions have teeth. The latest episode involved their shooting down one of or multi-million dollar drones.
Trump sought advice, then authorized an attack but before anything happened he concluded it was a disproportionate response so he called it off.
One can come to two basic conclusions as summarized by Natan Nestel. I do not know Natan but conclude he is an Israeli hawk and friend of a friend and fellow memo reader.
"This is the wrong message for Iran. For them it's a sign of weakness. They would be deterred only by disproportionate, powerful responses. In Iran’s eyes Trump is now a paper tiger. He is empowering the extremists.
Iran's provocations are a perfect opportunity to eliminate all their nuclear and strategic facilities.
The Iranian public that wants a regime change would be encouraged and empowered by powerful US responses."
The alternative argument is that the Iranians would gain the upper hand because the world is inhabited by timid souls and allies who would rater engage in commercial activity with Iran than support Trump and America. You decide. (See 1 and 2 below.)
And
https://www.nationalreview.
And
https://www.nationalreview.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
St John's Board of Visitor's and Governor's Reports. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A series of op eds by Salena Zito (See 4, 4a and 4b.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom Fitton keeps pressing. (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom Fitton keeps pressing. (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)Trump Scrapped Iran Strikes Because They Weren't `Proportionate'
· Iran action by U.S. called off by Trump had limited targets
President Donald Trump said he called off retaliatory strikes on three Iranian sites following the downing of a U.S. Navy drone because the action would not have been “proportionate.”
“We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General,” Trump tweeted Friday. “10 minutes before the strike I stopped it.”
A commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps told a semi-official news agency Friday that the drone had been accompanied by a manned U.S. spy plane that Iranian forces decided not to target.
The planned U.S. attack, ordered after Iranian forces shot down a U.S. Navy drone over the Strait of Hormuz, would have involved airstrikes and was close to being carried out when it was stopped, said an administration official, who would not discuss whether the plan might still be revived. The official was granted anonymity to discuss a national security matter.
National Security Advisor John Bolton was pushing for the strike. Trump changed his mind based on some additional information, an official said. Iran was not given any warning of possible retaliation.
With tensions still high, the Iranians called the Swiss ambassador, Markus Leitner, into the Foreign Ministry for talks. The Swiss embassy also represents U.S. interests in Iran, and the Swiss envoy traditionally serves as the conduit for messages between the two nations, which have no diplomatic relations. But Brian Hook, the U.S. special representative for Iran, told reporters the Iranians “continue to reject diplomatic overtures to deescalate tensions in the region.”
In one of his Friday tweets, Trump said “I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuild, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world.”
Airstrikes would have raised the specter of a far broader conflict in the volatile region, which supplies one-third of the world’s oil. The move and its reversal underscore the wavering approach the president has shown at times regarding military force. He has repeatedly and fiercely lashed out at Iran and North Korea, but then cooled his rhetoric when hostilities threatened to erupt into open conflict. On two occasions since he took office, he has ordered limited military strikes on Syria.
West Texas Intermediate rose 0.9% to $57.17 a barrel.
Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Seyed Abbas Araghchi said the country had “indisputable” evidence the U.S. drone had violated Iranian air space, and state TV showed what it said were recovered parts of the downed aircraft. “The Islamic Republic of Iran would not hesitate for a moment to decisively defend its territory against any aggression,” Araghchi said in a statement released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Friday.
Before the strike was called off, there were discussions Thursday about whether to heighten security and awareness at sensitive domestic sites, one of the officials said.
Earlier Thursday, as the attack was being planned, Trump downplayed Iran’s strike on the U.S. Navy drone in the Persian Gulf that escalated regional tensions and fueled a surge in oil prices, suggesting a “loose and stupid” individual may have been responsible for the strike.
“I would imagine it was a general or somebody who made a mistake by shooting that drone down,” Trump said during an Oval Office meeting Thursday with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. “I find it hard to believe it was intentional. It could have been somebody who was loose and stupid.”
The operation was first reported by the New York Times, which said that Trump had pulled back as warplanes were in the air. One of the U.S. officials disputed that part of the Times account.
The White House declined to comment on the reports and an official at the State Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The president is in an increasingly difficult position on Iran. His administration has blamed the Islamic Republic for a series of attacks in the Gulf region since mid-May, including one last week on two oil tankers, but with little consequence for Tehran. He’s shown a desire to project American power, yet during the 2016 election he promised to extricate the U.S. from foreign conflicts, an issue that’s sure to come up as his re-election campaign begins.
The U.S. has directed additional forces to the Middle East in recent weeks, but the numbers -- about 2,000 troops in total -- have been modest and haven’t come with clear indications of where they would be sent or what their mission would be. In some cases, forces already planned for deployment to the region had their arrival accelerated, while troops scheduled to depart saw their tours extended.
A military assault by the U.S. could have immediate and far-reaching consequences. With proxy forces or allies in countries including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, among others, retaliation from Iran could come in many forms, targeting not just U.S. interests but Israel as well and raising the risk of disruptions to oil flows out of the wider Persian Gulf region.
With Iran “threatening the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz,” Hook told reporters at a Saudi air base in Kharj, “it’s important that we deny Iran a foothold in the Gulf. It’s very important that we restore deterrence in this region.”
The last time the U.S. launched a significant military effort against Iran was Operation Praying Mantis in 1988. In that operation, U.S. Navy ships sank two Iranian ships and destroyed two Iranian surveillance platforms.
The move came after the USS Samuel B. Roberts was damaged by a mine in the Persian Gulf.
Later that year, a U.S. Navy cruiser shot down an Iranian commercial aircraft on a scheduled flight in Iranian airspace, killing nearly 300 people. The U.S. expressed regret for the loss of life and said it mistakenly targeted the plane. Iran said it was a deliberate and illegal act.
During his time in office, Trump has ratcheted up economic sanctions on Iran as part of his “maximum pressure” campaign against the Islamic Republic. Yet he has also said he doesn’t want a war with Tehran and that he is hoping Iran will reach out to negotiate.
As tensions climbed on Thursday following the drone strike, regional analysts and lawmakers from both parties warned that the likelihood of a bigger confrontation could be looming, whether intentional or not.
“The president may not intend to go to war here but we’re worried that he and the administration may bumble into a war,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, told reporters Thursday after a briefing at the White House.
The top Republicans in the Senate and House both called separately for Trump to take a “measured” response to the Iranian actions.
Saudi Vice Minister of Defense Khalid bin Salman said he met with Hook, the U.S. special representative to Iran, to “explore the latest efforts to counter hostile Iranian acts and continuous escalation that threaten the region’s security and stability.” In a series of posts on Twitter, the minister affirmed Saudi Arabia’s support for the U.S. “maximum pressure campaign on Iran.”
A RQ-4 Global Hawk drone.
The U.S. said the Global Hawk drone was flying in international airspace about 34 kilometers (20 miles) away from Iranian territory when it was shot down.
“This was an unprovoked attack on a U.S. surveillance asset in international airspace,” said Navy Captain Bill Urban, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command.
— With assistance by Justin Sink, Larry Liebert, and John Harney
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Trump's Iran policy: What are his critics and supporters saying?
By RON KAMPEAS
President Donald Trump says he is “very prepared” for Iran.
“We’re looking at Iran,” he said Tuesday when a reporter asked him what he had planned beyond sending another 1,000 U.S. troops to the area as tensions there appear to be escalating. “We have a lot of things going with Iran. We have — we’re very prepared for Iran. We’ll see what happens. Let me just say this: We are very prepared. Regardless of what goes, we are very, very prepared.”
Trump was short on details, which has unnerved Democratic members of Congress and presidential candidates, who have derided Trump on the campaign trail for an incoherent foreign policy that they say is escalating tensions.
“I hope Iran chooses a different path,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is emerging as a front runner in her party’s presidential stakes, said Tuesday on Twitter. “But let’s be clear: Trump provoked this crisis. He has no strategy to contain it, he’s burned through our friends and allies, and now he’s doubling down on military force. We can’t afford another forever war.”
Republicans and Trump administration officials say their critics’ concerns are overwrought. They say that everything is going exactly as planned: Iran is reeling from increased sanctions and other forms of pressure, and is lashing out before it realizes the error of its ways.
“This administration has implemented an unprecedented pressure campaign with two primary objectives: first to deprive the Iranian regime of the money it needs to support its destabilizing activities, second to bring Iran back to the negotiating table to conclude a comprehensive and enduring deal,” Brian Hook, the top State Department official handling the Iran brief, said at congressional hearing Wednesday.
The following day, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said it shot down an “intruding American spy drone” after it entered into the country’s territory, CNN reported, citing the state-run Press TV. A U.S. official confirmed to CNN that a drone had been shot down, but said the incident occurred in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, not in Iranian territory. It is not clear when the drone was shot down.
In recent days, attackers damaged two oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, which the Trump administration says is the work of Iran. Iran said it would break the limits imposed on its stockpile of enriched uranium imposed by the 2015 Iran deal. Trump committed the troops to the region.
Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., an Iran hawk within his party who opposed the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, on Wednesday convened the oversight hearing by the Middle East subcommittee he chairs to address Trump’s Iran policy.
“I question its coherence, its impact on our international leadership, its effectiveness and, at times, its recklessness,” Deutch said.
Among the concerns Deutch outlined:
Mixed messages on regime change (Trump explicitly opposes it, yet his national security adviser, John Bolton, was a staunch regime change advocate before he took this job and has indicated it is the outcome he still favors).
A failure to bring allies on board since Trump pulled out of the Iran deal a year ago.
The fact that Iran seems to be escalating, not tamping down, tensions.
Here’s how the Trump administration and defenders of its Iran policy are explaining what’s going on.
It’s about deterrence.
Hook told Deutch at the hearing that ramped-up sanctions and the threat of U.S. engagement were weakening Iran and deterring it from any serious actions.
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, said at the same hearing that Trump’s reimposition of sanctions had impoverished the Iranian regime.
“In my view, the sanctions are working,” McCaul said. “It is crippling Iran, it is crippling their economy, they are cash-starved and Hezbollah,” Iran’s terrorist ally in Lebanon, “is now begging for cash. To me, these are all positive signs.”
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., also on the Foreign Affairs Committee, said what the Trump administration was doing was no different than the sanctions and pressure that President Barack Obama used in the early part of this decade to get Iran to the negotiating table.
“It was the international sanctions regime against Iran that finally brought the Iranian regime to the table,” Wilson said at the hearing. “We must restore deterrence against Iran.”
No one wants war, guys …
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” dismissed talk of war, saying Trump has demonstrated a repeated and forceful commitment against involving Americans in military conflicts.
“Oh goodness, President Trump has said very clearly he doesn’t want to go to war,” Pompeo said when host Margaret Brennan asked if a U.S. military strike was on the horizon.
The endgame is peace, Hook told Deutch at the hearing.
“President Trump and Secretary Pompeo have expressed very clearly our willingness to negotiate with Iran,” Hook said. “When the time is right, no one should be uncertain about our desire for peace or our readiness to normalize relations.”
… but we need war’s threat to keep Iran off kilter.
“President Trump has done everything he can to avoid war,” Pompeo told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” “We don’t want war. We’ve done what we can to deter this. The Iranians should understand very clearly that we will continue to take actions that deter Iran from engaging in this kind of behavior.”
This isn’t Iraq.
Democrats raise the specter of another long-term, open-ended and destructive war, of the kind President George W. Bush launched in 2003 with Iraq — the “forever war” Warren mentioned.
Eli Lake, a Bloomberg News columnist, said invoking Iraq misses the mark. There is no sign that Trump is planning the scale of invasion that Bush led in 2003.
The better comparison, Lake said, was what was once known as “cruise missile” diplomacy — targeted attacks to send a message, not to launch a war. Lake said he had heard from Trump officials that one option under consideration was limited attacks on Iranian naval facilities.
“There was a lot of criticism of President Bill Clinton’s decision to strike targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in response to al-Qaida’s bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa,” Lake wrote. “But there was no credible argument then that the attacks were a pretext for a U.S. invasion, and there isn’t one now that limited strikes against Iranian naval facilities will lead to a ground war.”
If anyone wants war, its Iran — and it has for 40 years.
A repeated theme in explanations of Trump’s Iran policy is that he is getting around to dealing with a regime that since its 1979 revolution has waged a nonstop war on U.S. and allied interests through terrorist attacks, regional adventurism and pokes against U.S. forces,
“I think you have to put it in the context of 40 years of behavior inside the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Pompeo said on “Face the Nation.” “This is consistent with how they have behaved previously. They did it when they were in the JCPOA [the 2015 nuclear deal]: They built their missile program; we relieved sanctions; they took American sailors hostage. This is a regime that has caused much harm.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) June 2019 BVG Report from the Presidents
The St. John’s College Board of Visitors and Governors (BVG) met in Annapolis from June 13–15, 2019. The meeting centered on effective governance in an era of uncertainty and significant challenges for small liberal arts colleges. What does it mean for a board to honor its fiduciary duty? The BVG is very clear: it has a legal and ethical obligation to ensure the college’s financial health and student well-being.
“We’re looking at Iran,” he said Tuesday when a reporter asked him what he had planned beyond sending another 1,000 U.S. troops to the area as tensions there appear to be escalating. “We have a lot of things going with Iran. We have — we’re very prepared for Iran. We’ll see what happens. Let me just say this: We are very prepared. Regardless of what goes, we are very, very prepared.”
Trump was short on details, which has unnerved Democratic members of Congress and presidential candidates, who have derided Trump on the campaign trail for an incoherent foreign policy that they say is escalating tensions.
“I hope Iran chooses a different path,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is emerging as a front runner in her party’s presidential stakes, said Tuesday on Twitter. “But let’s be clear: Trump provoked this crisis. He has no strategy to contain it, he’s burned through our friends and allies, and now he’s doubling down on military force. We can’t afford another forever war.”
Republicans and Trump administration officials say their critics’ concerns are overwrought. They say that everything is going exactly as planned: Iran is reeling from increased sanctions and other forms of pressure, and is lashing out before it realizes the error of its ways.
“This administration has implemented an unprecedented pressure campaign with two primary objectives: first to deprive the Iranian regime of the money it needs to support its destabilizing activities, second to bring Iran back to the negotiating table to conclude a comprehensive and enduring deal,” Brian Hook, the top State Department official handling the Iran brief, said at congressional hearing Wednesday.
The following day, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said it shot down an “intruding American spy drone” after it entered into the country’s territory, CNN reported, citing the state-run Press TV. A U.S. official confirmed to CNN that a drone had been shot down, but said the incident occurred in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, not in Iranian territory. It is not clear when the drone was shot down.
In recent days, attackers damaged two oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, which the Trump administration says is the work of Iran. Iran said it would break the limits imposed on its stockpile of enriched uranium imposed by the 2015 Iran deal. Trump committed the troops to the region.
Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., an Iran hawk within his party who opposed the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, on Wednesday convened the oversight hearing by the Middle East subcommittee he chairs to address Trump’s Iran policy.
“I question its coherence, its impact on our international leadership, its effectiveness and, at times, its recklessness,” Deutch said.
Among the concerns Deutch outlined:
Mixed messages on regime change (Trump explicitly opposes it, yet his national security adviser, John Bolton, was a staunch regime change advocate before he took this job and has indicated it is the outcome he still favors).
A failure to bring allies on board since Trump pulled out of the Iran deal a year ago.
The fact that Iran seems to be escalating, not tamping down, tensions.
Here’s how the Trump administration and defenders of its Iran policy are explaining what’s going on.
It’s about deterrence.
Hook told Deutch at the hearing that ramped-up sanctions and the threat of U.S. engagement were weakening Iran and deterring it from any serious actions.
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, said at the same hearing that Trump’s reimposition of sanctions had impoverished the Iranian regime.
“In my view, the sanctions are working,” McCaul said. “It is crippling Iran, it is crippling their economy, they are cash-starved and Hezbollah,” Iran’s terrorist ally in Lebanon, “is now begging for cash. To me, these are all positive signs.”
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., also on the Foreign Affairs Committee, said what the Trump administration was doing was no different than the sanctions and pressure that President Barack Obama used in the early part of this decade to get Iran to the negotiating table.
“It was the international sanctions regime against Iran that finally brought the Iranian regime to the table,” Wilson said at the hearing. “We must restore deterrence against Iran.”
No one wants war, guys …
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” dismissed talk of war, saying Trump has demonstrated a repeated and forceful commitment against involving Americans in military conflicts.
“Oh goodness, President Trump has said very clearly he doesn’t want to go to war,” Pompeo said when host Margaret Brennan asked if a U.S. military strike was on the horizon.
The endgame is peace, Hook told Deutch at the hearing.
“President Trump and Secretary Pompeo have expressed very clearly our willingness to negotiate with Iran,” Hook said. “When the time is right, no one should be uncertain about our desire for peace or our readiness to normalize relations.”
… but we need war’s threat to keep Iran off kilter.
“President Trump has done everything he can to avoid war,” Pompeo told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” “We don’t want war. We’ve done what we can to deter this. The Iranians should understand very clearly that we will continue to take actions that deter Iran from engaging in this kind of behavior.”
This isn’t Iraq.
Democrats raise the specter of another long-term, open-ended and destructive war, of the kind President George W. Bush launched in 2003 with Iraq — the “forever war” Warren mentioned.
Eli Lake, a Bloomberg News columnist, said invoking Iraq misses the mark. There is no sign that Trump is planning the scale of invasion that Bush led in 2003.
The better comparison, Lake said, was what was once known as “cruise missile” diplomacy — targeted attacks to send a message, not to launch a war. Lake said he had heard from Trump officials that one option under consideration was limited attacks on Iranian naval facilities.
“There was a lot of criticism of President Bill Clinton’s decision to strike targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in response to al-Qaida’s bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa,” Lake wrote. “But there was no credible argument then that the attacks were a pretext for a U.S. invasion, and there isn’t one now that limited strikes against Iranian naval facilities will lead to a ground war.”
If anyone wants war, its Iran — and it has for 40 years.
A repeated theme in explanations of Trump’s Iran policy is that he is getting around to dealing with a regime that since its 1979 revolution has waged a nonstop war on U.S. and allied interests through terrorist attacks, regional adventurism and pokes against U.S. forces,
“I think you have to put it in the context of 40 years of behavior inside the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Pompeo said on “Face the Nation.” “This is consistent with how they have behaved previously. They did it when they were in the JCPOA [the 2015 nuclear deal]: They built their missile program; we relieved sanctions; they took American sailors hostage. This is a regime that has caused much harm.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) June 2019 BVG Report from the Presidents
The St. John’s College Board of Visitors and Governors (BVG) met in Annapolis from June 13–15, 2019. The meeting centered on effective governance in an era of uncertainty and significant challenges for small liberal arts colleges. What does it mean for a board to honor its fiduciary duty? The BVG is very clear: it has a legal and ethical obligation to ensure the college’s financial health and student well-being.
As has been our custom over the past three years, what follows is a report to our community of the key takeaways from the BVG meeting including improving the student experience, an update on inclusion and wellness, progress on the Freeing Minds campaign and our finances, as well as enrollment and launching our new visual identity.
- Board Responsibilities in Challenging Economic Times
- Improving the Student Experience
- Finances and Capital Campaign
- Enrollment and Visibility
- Conclusion
- Feedback
Board Responsibilities in Challenging Economic Times
As detailed in a statement from the board that was also highlighted at its public Plenary session, higher education in America is at an inflection point; 10–15 small liberal arts colleges are projected to close every year. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, as our deficits grew annually, many at St. John’s were convinced that the problem was cyclical and would correct itself. Eleven years later, we know this is not the case, and have had to make significant cost reductions and hard decisions to reduce this deficit.
While the BVG properly cedes much of the responsibility for designing and implementing these deficit reduction measures to college management, in the end it is the BVG that bears the ultimate responsibility for the college’s financial future.
As Chair of the Board Ron Fielding (A70) said during the Plenary session:
“We have a fiduciary duty to have the longer-term viewpoint of what needs to happen to the [college] over generations rather than just in years or decades … So it’s extremely important that we make sure that we preserve the strength and vitality of this institution for many years to come because of its uniqueness. It does mean that we need to make changes, and this is going to remain a very difficult time for us [to get to a balanced budget].”
Now, we are at another turning point: becoming a student-centered institution. We are looking at the total student experience at St. John’s—from orientation to graduation and beyond—and how we can do better
“The students are our north star,” stated Annapolis President Pano Kanelos, “the thing to which we always have to be oriented. We live in a different world and the young people who are experiencing this world are experiencing it as more turbulent and chaotic than it was when we were their age.”
The changing nature of student needs was a major theme at the BVG meeting. “I strongly believe that we still underestimate not only the financial change that is affecting colleges across the country, but other changes that are almost equally profound in the nature of who it is that we serve,” said College-wide and Santa Fe President Mark Roosevelt. “And recognition of this is essential to us adapting appropriately.”
We must ask ourselves what we can do to improve the student experience at St. John’s so that students not only “survive” our Program (as so many alumni have told us), but flourish, both inside and outside the classroom (as well as post-St. John’s).
Of course we also know that improving the student experience—student life, academic and personal supports, extracurricular activities, mental health services, and campus culture—is dependent upon improving our financial position. Once we arrive at a balanced budget, much more will be possible.
These and other matters were part of the BVG discussion, and you can read more about them in the full report that follows.
Improving the Student Experience
RETENTION MATTERS
The Visiting Committee has been examining retention at St. John’s for a full year. The committee has interviewed and surveyed over 100 students, examined “best practices” at other colleges, and interviewed many St. John’s faculty and staff representatives. During our most recent meeting, the committee reviewed potential remedies that address the identified causes for withdrawal. There were several recommendations put forth that included promoting tutor mentorship of students, improving Greek and math assistance, and implementing more mental health supports.
While there are differing opinions as to the most effective tactics to address student attrition, the meeting made clear that there is broad support from leadership to improve student retention.
“Any impediment to student flourishing we have an obligation to address,” said President Kanelos.
Quite a few potential remedies, such as reworking freshman orientation, are actively under consideration on both campuses. The next step is for the presidents, key administrators, and the faculties (led by their respective deans) to respond to the committee with their comments and suggestions by the next BVG meeting in November.
INCLUSION AND WELLNESS
Gender equity issues and the concerns of underrepresented minorities were also discussed in multiple sessions. Santa Fe Dean Walter Sterling (A93) provided an overview of ongoing efforts in Santa Fe to address these disparities, including faculty seminars on gender dynamics and underrepresented voices in the classroom, in which every member of the faculty participated.
“It’s been reported to me by students that many tutors made this issue thematic in ways that had not happened before,” said Dean Sterling. “In class, the tutor would say something if the discussion seemed imbalanced with regard to men’s vs. women’s voices being heard.”
In Annapolis, Dean Joe Macfarland (A87) related how student leaders, Resident Assistants, archons of student clubs, and other members of the student body met with one another and held conversations that cut across gender and class year, partly so that they could learn from one another how they manage situations that are difficult for them, but also so that these student voices could be collected and heard by the faculty.
“The faculty take these questions seriously when they know that students are concerned about them,” said Dean Macfarland, “because [the faculty] are concerned about how students experience the classroom and under what circumstances they thrive in the classroom.”
These are just a few examples of how the deans have been working with the faculty and the student community to carry out the recommendations of the ad hoc Campus Culture Committee (CCC), which issued a report last year on a range of campus culture issues, including gender equity in the classroom.
In Annapolis and Santa Fe, multiple steps have been taken on the mental health front as well, from hiring additional counselors to restructuring the intake process for counseling services, all done with the goal of meeting increased student demand.
“[Students] have significantly more anxiety, and stress, and mental health challenges,” said President Roosevelt. “There’s been a tripling of demand for mental health services on [college] campuses over the last 15 years. We are not immune from that.”
Finances and Capital Campaign
CAPITAL CAMPAIGN UPDATE
The Freeing Minds capital campaign has secured commitments to date of $202.7 million towards the campaign goal of $300 million. The performance of the Annual Fund continues to improve; the number of gifts to the Annual Fund is up 40 percent compared to last year. We also achieved a new milestone in giving to the college, thanks to new and re-engaged friends and alumni who have contributed over $1 million in gifts under $5,000.
The goals of the campaign launch and the Winiarski Family Foundation Challenge were to excite alumni and inspire new philanthropy, and alumni and friends of the college have responded enthusiastically. But we will need several thousand new and re-engaged donors at all giving levels to reach the campaign goal in four years. An analysis by the development team presented during the Advancement Committee shows that this is possible, and we are excited to meet new donors whom we do not yet know (but will know, soon) and re-engage with lapsed donors. To learn more, visit freeingminds.sjc.edu.
FINANCES AND BUDGET UPDATE
We remain on track to come in under the $3.9 million deficit goal that the board set for us for this fiscal year ending June 30. The BVG unanimously approved a budget for FY 19-20 which should meet the goal of bringing the deficit down to $1.9 million.
For the year thereafter, 2021, we have to reach a balanced budget. Although some savings have already been found, we still need to identify an additional $1 million to reach our goal. We will be grappling with how to do this over the next six months.
In recognition of the progress that has been made and the challenges that still remain, the BVG voted to extend Mark Roosevelt’s term as college-wide president by four years, from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2023 and renew his contract as president of the Santa Fe campus until June 30, 2024.
Enrollment and Visibility
May 1 is an important marker in the admissions world, as most colleges require admitted students to accept offers of admission by this date. Annapolis is reporting a one-year, 10 percent increase in deposits, while Santa Fe has a one-year, 26 percent increase in deposits. These positive results come at a time when other small colleges sharing data saw an average 5 percent decrease in May 1 deposits.
Domestic applications are up 14 percent, while international applications are down 12 percent—the latter statistic reflecting a national trend. Twenty percent of our admitted students are Pell Grant recipients, 31 percent are the first in their families to attend college, and women make up nearly half of the admitted freshman classes in both Annapolis and Santa Fe (49 percent and 47 percent, respectively, which, historically, represents good balance for us). We also had encouraging increases in both SAT and ACT scores and GPA, especially in Santa Fe.
At St. John’s, the admissions cycle does not end until later in the summer. Thus far, 1,368 students have applied for Fall 2019, and more will continue to submit applications in the coming months, with others rescinding their intention to enroll. As a result, both campuses will continue to enroll more students until each campus meets its enrollment goals. In Annapolis, the goal is 140 to 144 fall freshmen and in Santa Fe, 90 to 95 fall freshmen to be joined by 20–30 new freshmen in January for the spring semester. The final numbers will be reported after matriculation day in August.
ENROLLMENT INITIATIVES
- Summer Academy will kick off on both campuses in July with nearly 300 high school students—the first time this program has reached capacity for both Santa Fe and Annapolis. If replicable for future years, this could prove to be a boon for college enrollment, since Summer Academy attendance is a good indicator of intent to apply to St. John’s.
- In Annapolis, the BASIS Teachers Program and Certificate in Liberal Education Program are currently welcoming its inaugural classes to campus, which marks an important increase in enrollment for the Graduate Institute.
- President Kanelos announced the Bridge to St. John’s Program with Anne Arundel Community College (AACC), which would provide pathways for transfer students to St. John’s four-year program through establishing a year-long honors track on the Great Books. To encourage these students to enroll in St. John’s as freshmen, they will receive a grant equivalent to the tuition spent at AACC.
VISIBILITY
The Advancement Committee also heard an overview of new initiatives centered around the visual identity of the college. For the last two and a half years, we have solicited and listened to alumni about all aspects of the college. Driven in large part by alumni feedback, our new visual identity harkens back to the traditional seal and colors of St. John’s. The new look appears on everything from staff and faculty email signatures to the college’s website, sjc.edu. This initiative also includes the launch of our new online store and differentiation in marketing that will showcase the two campuses’ unique strengths, highlighting differences in location and campus culture.
Conclusion
These are challenging times for small liberal arts colleges. Declines in student-derived revenue, fueled by shifting demographics and downward trends in family financial capacity, have left many schools with an uncertain future—while changing student needs simultaneously require much more care and support.
These new realities require much more from the governing body of St. John’s. The BVG’s fiduciary obligations do not permit it to view the college’s future through a best-case scenario, and it has therefore set clear goals for the college to restore its financial health, the most important of which is reaching a balanced operating budget by 2021.
The board has also committed to efforts to address and improve the overall student experience. As President Roosevelt said in the Plenary session, once we have accepted a student, we have invited them into our home, and our home should be a place of love and care. Warren Spector (A81), chair of the Advancement and Campaign Steering Committees, echoed that sentiment: “I would not be here in this room if it weren’t for the love and support I received from the faculty.”
We have more work to do to achieve a balanced budget, which will allow for the college to do things to improve the student experience that are just not possible when running deficits. But reaching—and maintaining—a balanced budget is a collaborative effort among all college constituencies, senior management, staff, faculty, alumni, and friends. We are deeply grateful for the sacrifices made by members of our community in order to ensure we achieve our goals.
Feedback
If there are topics that you think we should be covering in the emails that follow board meetings, or if you have specific suggestions on how this message could be more helpful, please send an email to . We would also welcome any comments you would like to offer about the student experience at St. John’s and how it might be improved. Please know that while we may not be able to respond to these comments individually, we value your feedback and will utilize it in our decision-making.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)
Richard Trumka and Big Labor try to come home
PITTSBURGH-
”As the Democrats have rapidly moved to the Left on social issues and embraced identity politics, rank-and-file union members began to feel alienated from their own party. Economic interests, including trade, kept many of them in the party, but they were leaving even before Donald Trump.
”As the Democrats have rapidly moved to the Left on social issues and embraced identity politics, rank-and-file union members began to feel alienated from their own party. Economic interests, including trade, kept many of them in the party, but they were leaving even before Donald Trump.
“Leadership, however, was busy in Washington D.C. and had longstanding relationships with Democratic politicians. Hanging out with Republicans seemed unnatural, and in fairness, most of the Republicans in Congress, especially the Senate, wouldn't have much to talk about with someone like Richard Trumka.”
In a way, though, the union leaders got co-opted, and just went along with the leftward shift on social issues.
And as the Democratic Party became more coastal, its core voters became increasingly internationalist, including on trade.
Obama papered over these differences, running on anti-trade rhetoric to please people like Trumka and then governing as a free trader.”
4a) Western Pennsylvania kid named acting secretary of defense, my interview with him on the turf of Heinz Field
Mark Esper has been named as the acting Secretary of Defense — my interview with him on the turf of Heinz Field
PITTSBURGH- “You have to give the soldiers, the Army, a clear vision," he said. "The Army Chief and I did that in June. We sent out a vision statement where we want the Army to be in 10 years. The Army of 2028 and it spoke to all these things: How are we going to man the Army? How are we going to organize, train, equip, and lead it? And set out some clear paths. What we have done here in the short months I have been on board also is we've raised the standards on recruiting. We are extending basic training. It'll be the longest and toughest in the world. We have a plan to completely modernize the Army and at the same time, we're taking off these unnecessary training and mandatory training requirements off of the soldier's backs,” he said.
Click here for the full story: https://www.
4b) Why many Dems in the South back the new stricter abortion laws
Why many Dems in the South back the new stricter abortion laws
MAYSVILLE, Ky. — Kentucky state Rep. John Sims is a Democrat. He also voted for the state’s recent heartbeat bill, which bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected.
In a country where Democrats are viewed as overwhelmingly pro-choice, Sims seems like an oddity.
Blue states like New York are increasingly expanding a woman’s right to choose. In January, Democratic Gov. Cuomo passed a law permitting late-term abortions when the mother’s life is in danger and ordered the spire of the World Trade Center to be lit up pink to “shine a bright light forward for the rest of the nation to follow.”
But Sims doesn’t see himself as strange.
“It is not unusual at all in my book to be both a Democrat and pro-life; it’s just the way I was raised in the church,” said Sims from the back of the Dairy Queen his family has owned for 66 years.
Click here for the full story.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5) Judicial Watch's Weekly Update: JW Exposed FBI-Media Collusion Against Trump This is a first for Judicial Watch: We apparently were the cause of a spat between FBI lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
This and more serious revelations come in 345 pages of Page-Strzok records obtained through a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed respond to a December 4, 2017 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)). We sued for all communications between FBI official Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page.
The emails were released in response to a May 21 court order by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton to the FBI to process 13,000 pages of records. The records are being released to us intermittently in batches.
In an email thread starting at 6:34 a.m. on May 9, 2017, with the subject line “Comey’s Testimony on Huma Abedin Forwarding Emails Was Inaccurate – ProPublica” nearly a dozen top FBI officials scrambled to draft a letter to Congress about Comey’s May 3 Senate testimony.This email thread was concerned with a May 8, 2017, ProPublica report stating that, “Comey’s most surprising revelation was that Huma Abedin — [Anthony] Weiner’s wife and a top Clinton deputy — had made ’a regular practice’ of forwarding ‘hundreds and thousands’ of Clinton messages to her husband, ‘some of which contain classified information.’ Comey testified that Abedin had done this so that the disgraced former congressman could print them out for her boss.… FBI officials have privately acknowledged that Comey misstated what Abedin did and what the FBI investigators found.” After a flurry of emails, by 8:56 a.m. Comey’s chief of staff, Jim Rybicki, sent the group a draft letter for Congress, saying, “Below is a draft that has been reviewed by the Director. Please let me know your thoughts.” At 2:02PM, Asst. Director for Congressional Affairs, Greg Brower, asked his colleagues to review the latest iteration of the draft letter to the Senate. Just “hours after” the FBI issued a letter muddling his testimony, Trump announced Comey’s firing. In a March 24, 2017 email from New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt to FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs Michael Kortan, Schmidt offers the FBI information about Ambassador Kislyak allegedly setting up a meeting between Jared Kushner and a Russian banker. Michael Schmidt asks no questions of Kortan, instead only offering information: Michael Schmidt emails Kortan: Mike: Wanted to flag you on something. Three of my colleagues are working on a story about the Russia investigation. They’re told that Jared Kushner is among the individuals who the F.B.I. is scrutinizing for their meetings with Russians. My colleagues were told that Ambassador Kislyak, after meeting Kushner and General Flynn in early December at Trump Tower, set up a meeting with Kushner and a Russian banker. Kushner ultimately met with the Russian banker. The banker worked for Alpha Bank. Thanks. Mike In an April 10, 2017, email exchange between Strzok, Page and other redacted FBI officials with the subject line “NYT Last Shot,” the FBI appears to be given a preview of an upcoming article in The New York Times. [Redacted] emails Strzok, Page and others: Pete/Lisa, The editing is nearing completion and we have one last shot to hear what the end result is. Do you have time later today or tomorrow that is convenient for a listening session? Likely by phone in Mike’s office. In an email on April 26, 2017, ProPublica reporter Peter Elkind sent the FBI a “fact check” list of items in preparation for a story he was working on about James Comey and the Clinton email investigation. Elkind describes the list as, “a first small batch of straightforward details for fact-check purposes.” Elkind notes that his information showed that Comey had “ordered up files on about 30 previous cases where government had investigated mishandling of classified information.” In response to Elkind’s questions, four top FBI officials, including Strzok, Page and Kortan were assembled as a “quorum” to discuss. In a series of emails on April 27, 2017, an FBI official whose name was redacted states that a Politico reporter forwarded them a Judicial Watch press release discussing how an FBI court filing revealed the existence of a grand jury targeting Clinton. That official then forwarded it to Strzok, Page and other redacted officials in the Counterterrorism Division and Director’s Office. The assistant general counsel in the National Security Law Branch responded, copying in E.W. Priestap, assistant director for Counterintelligence, but his response is entirely redacted. In a separate email exchange on April 27, 2017, about the same Judicial Watch press release, Page replies to someone in the Office of General Counsel saying “I didn’t realize that we had said this publicly.” Next Page appears to quarrel with paramour Strzok via email about this issue:
Page emails Strzok: Are you serious, dude? I sent to [redacted]. So I’ve committed some grave sin for not including you on this? My apologies, DAD Strzok, sir.
Strzok emails Page: You know what? Take a step back and look at this… And stop with the DAD Sir bullsh*t. That’s not the point and you know it. Page emails Strzok: I think you think you should take your own advice. I didn’t look to see who was on the distribution when I sent it. Sorry, that’s on me. But this is distinctly not a big deal. And I definitely didn’t err in not including you on a two-line email to [redacted]. Get a grip. In a May 1, 2017, email exchange between Strzok and a redacted FBI Counterespionage Division official about a background briefing Strzok gave about charges being brought against a group of Russians for hacking Yahoo, Strzok says, “What you saw … is that the D (Director Comey), DD (Deputy Director Andrew McCabe), and EAD (Executive Asst. Director Paul Abbate) are all bright men with attention to detail and impressive memories.” In a March 21, 2017, email from Strzok to Page, Strzok accuses an FBI colleague of “constant sneaky but unprovable underhandedness,” because she called “Charlie” in the FBI Office in NY for information on something rather than waiting on Strzok to respond, saying she didn’t know “if your answer meant you’d be back tonight.” Strzok emails Page: Of course this was a BS cover for calling Charlie in NY about one of my cases because of something Carl allegedly asked (“I didn’t know if your answer meant you’d be back tonight”) … I tired of the constant sneaky but unprovable underhandedness. These new Page-Strzok emails show the Obama FBI to be a mess both professionally and ethically. The best example of the ethical morass at the FBI are the emails showing how a report on our disclosure that a grand jury had been used in the Clinton email investigation set off a spat between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
No comments:
Post a Comment